Suburban poverty affects over 16.4 million people across the U.S. and is growing rapidly, significantly outpacing the growth rate of urban poverty over the last decade (64% vs. 29%). Experts suggest that the problem of suburban poverty is “the new normal.” While the basic needs of the poor in the suburbs are similar to those of the urban poor (e.g. education inequity, poor access to quality healthcare etc.), there are some critical systemic differences (e.g. limited transportation options, jurisdictional challenges etc.). These challenges are further exacerbated by the lack of awareness and understanding of the problem and potential solutions.

1. Suburban Poverty in the United States
May 2013

2. Problem Statement and Key Messages
2
Suburban poverty affects over 16.4 million people across the U.S. and is growing rapidly, significantly
outpacing the growth rate of urban poverty over the last decade (64% vs. 29%). Experts suggest that the
problem of suburban poverty is “the new normal.” While the basic needs of the poor in the suburbs are
similar to those of the urban poor (e.g. education inequity, poor access to quality healthcare etc.), there are
some critical systemic differences (e.g. limited transportation options, jurisdictional challenges etc.). These
challenges are further exacerbated by the lack of awareness and understanding of the problem and
potential solutions.
Key Messages
1. Since 2008, there have been more poor people in the United States living
in suburbs than in cities, and the number continues to grow. The
challenges facing the poor in suburbs are both familiar and unique.
Equitable access to the opportunities presented by suburban institutions
is limited because they are not prepared to serve a growing poor
population. Further, the suburban social safety net is inadequate and
governance structures can impede cooperation.
2. Concentrated poverty, which is associated with a number of knock‐on
effects like higher rates of crime, unemployment, high school drop‐outs
etc. is less prevalent in suburbs than in urban areas, but affects non‐whites
the most. They represent 76% of the population in areas of
concentrated suburban poverty.
3. Suburban poverty exists across the nation, though suburbs of
metropolitan regions in the South and West experience this trend most
acutely. Attempts to establish archetypes led to the conclusion that
suburbs defy categorization; they vary across the country and even
within metro regions.
4. Despite the pressing nature of the problem, awareness and
understanding of suburban poverty and solutions are at the early stage,
as the focus remains on urban poverty. This has contributed to limited
funding (<8% of recent funding from top foundations went to suburbs)
and limited political attention to suburban poverty.
5. Partially as a result of limited attention, there are few successful
interventions that have proven outcomes in the suburban context. The
few that were identified, all work at a metro‐regional level to achieve
scale and require working through the challenges of coordinating across
county lines and funding jurisdictions.
6. The suburban/urban construct is helpful as a problem frame. However,
experts believe that solutions will need to be at a metro‐regional level,
encompassing both urban and suburban poor.
7. While this space has the potential for dynamism, there are few forces
today that are creating opportunities. Catalyzing awareness and
understanding of this new and changing spatial distribution of poverty
seem to present the strongest opportunity, in parallel with engaging key
players at the metro‐regional level to demonstrate success stories that
can be scaled across regions.
8. The “white space” nature of this issue makes it attractive. However, it
also brings with it key reputational, operational and strategic risks that
need further consideration.

3. 3
Definitions of Key Terms
Concentrated Poverty: Concentrated poverty refers to neighborhoods where there are high percentages of poor people relative to the overall total
population. Living in areas above a certain threshold of poverty (typically >20%) exponentially increases the poor’s vulnerability to social,
environmental, and institutional stressors beyond what any individual’s circumstances would contribute. External compounding stressors include
increases in crime, unemployment, teenage childbearing, and high school dropouts.
Federal Poverty Line: The Federal Poverty Line (FPL) is the U.S. government’s measure of who is poor, based on a family’s annual cash income. The
100% FPL sits at $11,490 for a household of 1 and $23,550 for a household of 4. It is agnostic to the local cost of living.
Immigrant: The definition of an immigrant is derived from the U.S. Census Bureau’s use of the term “foreign born,” which refers to anyone who is not a
U.S. citizen at birth. Under the Census, this term includes naturalized U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents (immigrants), temporary migrants (such
as foreign students), humanitarian migrants (such as refugees and asylees), and persons present in the United States without legal documentation. The
definition used for these materials excludes those listed by the Census as foreign born who are now naturalized citizens.
Jurisdiction: A jurisdiction refers to the level or geographic bound within which a governing body exercises authority. In relation to suburbs, most
jurisdictional decisions occur at the county or county‐equivalent level, the first tier of local government sitting below the state‐level.
Metro‐regional: Metro‐regional refers to a level of analysis, intervention, or strategy that encompasses part or all of both an urban core and its
surrounding suburbs. A proxy for a metro‐regional approach would be a Metropolitan Statistical Area though they are not equivalent terms as a metro‐regional
approach may include more or less geographies than that which is bounded by a Metropolitan Statistical Area.
Metropolitan Statistical Area: A Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) consists of a large population core (such as a city) and its adjacent communities
(such as a suburb) that have a high degree of social and economic integration with that core, typically defined by commuting patterns.
Poverty: Poverty is measured in these materials by income poverty and unless otherwise stated, uses the U.S. Census Bureau’s 100% federal poverty
line. This measure does not account for other important dimensions of poverty, such as asset poverty, annual consumption or an assessment of well‐being.
Suburbs: A suburb, in alignment with the work of the Brookings Institution, is any community residing outside of an urban core that has a high degree of
social and economic integration with that urban core, typically assessed through commuting patterns. To identify suburban neighborhoods, we
identified the top 100 Metropolitan Statistical Areas based on 2011 population estimates and selected out those cities that were (1) listed within the
names of the Top 100 MSAs and (2) had population sizes of over 100,000 as urban centers.

4. 4
Executive Summary
• Suburban poverty affects over 16.4 million people across the U.S. and is growing rapidly, outpacing the growth rate of urban poverty over
the last decade (64% vs. 29%). More poor people within key vulnerable populations and at every level of poverty now live in the suburbs
than in urban areas. Though suburban poverty tends to be demographically more “white” than urban poverty, the non‐white suburban poor
increasingly find themselves in pockets of concentrated poverty. Concentrated poverty is associated with a number of knock‐on effects that
make it worth special attention: higher rates of crime, unemployment, teenage pregnancy, and high school drop‐outs.
• A unique combination of access issues and system failures (e.g., limited transportation options, a disproportionate lack of social safety nets
and funding, and fragmented governance systems) exacerbate the problem and make it more difficult for people to climb out of poverty.
• The issue of suburban poverty holds the potential for dynamism but remains too early stage to predict its trajectory. There are a limited
number of forces creating opportunities in the space. These include increasing awareness of poverty in the suburbs and the suburbs’
changing political and economic importance. In addition, trends surrounding immigration reform, the housing market, and the health of the
national economy may affect the future scale and direction of suburban poverty, as well as desire to address it.
• While the suburban/urban poverty construct is helpful for understanding the changing nature and growth of poverty in the US, experts and
practitioners agree that it is not as useful for thinking about potential solutions. Developing metro‐regional solutions that collectively
address urban and suburban poverty is considered more promising, e.g. demonstrating success at a metro‐regional level, as well as testing
the lessons learned from work on urban poverty to the new challenges and complexities of the suburban context. In parallel, there is an
opportunity to build a shared community of practice around and acknowledgement of the issue at the national level.
• Suburban poverty is an issue in its infancy, contributing to a limited funding landscape that is insufficient to address the size of the problem.
Few interventions have been developed and tested and the problem remains a less well‐known one, with The Brookings Institution producing
most research on the topic. Those bright spots that do exist employ metro‐regional solutions, which still face jurisdictional and funding
challenges. Resources and attention remain focused on urban poverty, an as‐yet‐unresolved and still growing national problem.
• A preliminary view suggests some high‐level outcomes that could contribute to the alleviation of suburban poverty: increasing national
awareness of the issue, building equitable access to employment, health, education, and affordable housing for the suburban poor, and
increasing the capacity of social service providers in the suburbs.

5. What is the scale and scope of the problem?
Why is the problem pressing?
5
Scale: Why It Is Important Scope: National Relevance
Today there are more poor living in the suburbs than in urban areas.
• 16.4 million in the suburbs fell below the federal poverty line (FPL)—$23,550 for
a household of 4. This is 3 million more than in urban areas.1 These estimates fail
to capture other dimensions of poverty, which suggests the problem could be
worse.
In the last decade, the growth in the number of poor in the suburbs more than
doubled the rate of growth in urban areas (64% vs. 29%.)
• Total population growth while higher in the suburbs (15%) than urban areas (7%)
does not fully account for the growth in poverty rates.
• If these trends persist, the number of poor in the suburbs is projected to be
24.5 million in 2020, far exceeding the number of poor in urban areas by over
million.
There are now more poor women, single mothers, immigrants, children and
elderly in the suburbs and the growth rates of these vulnerable populations in
the suburbs have outpaced urban areas.
• The number of poor suburban households led by single mothers grew by 36%
from 2000 to 2011, compared with 20% in urban areas.
• The number of poor suburban Hispanics (the fastest growing ethnic group) rose
by 81% from 2000 to 2011, compared with 45% in urban areas.
There are now more people in the suburbs at all levels of poverty, including dire
poverty (<50% of FPL) and near poverty (<200% of FPL.)
• Growth rates of each poverty level in the suburbs outpaced those in urban areas.
While total poor population in the suburbs is higher, relative poverty rates
remain higher in urban areas.
• Nationally, 22% of the urban population is poor, as opposed to 9% of the
suburban population.
Over 4 million of the suburban poor live in towns where more than 20% of
the population is poor, also known as concentrated poverty.
• Living in concentrated poverty exponentially increases the poor’s
vulnerability to social, environmental, and institutional stressors beyond what
any poor individual’s circumstances would contribute.2 This environment
contributes to higher rates of crime, unemployment, and epidemic‐like rates
of teen pregnancy and high drop outs associated with high poverty
communities.3
• Non‐whites are significantly overrepresented in suburbs with high
concentrations of poverty, making up 76% of the population in those areas.
This segregation in living patterns perpetuates structures of racial inequality.
Concentrated suburban poverty, compared to concentrated urban poverty, is
exacerbated by the geographic sprawl of people and services.
• The 4.1 million in concentrated suburban poverty reside in ~500 counties,
whereas the 4.9 million living in concentrated urban poverty reside in ~30
counties.
There is a diversity of suburb types, which makes generalizations difficult.
• Suburbs have unique characteristics along multiple dimensions including
drivers of poverty (e.g., immigration, foreclosures); proximity to an urban
core (e.g., inner ring suburb, outer ring suburb); and spatial distribution (e.g.,
lack of a dense urban core.)
• Suburban poverty exists across the nation, though suburbs of metropolitan
regions in the South and West experience this trend most acutely.
• The hardest‐hit communities are located in Texas, California and Florida.
These states held 8 of the top 10 metro regions with the highest percentages
of suburban poor.
• Approximately 27% of the suburban poor (4.4 million) reside in only 5
metropolitan areas. See U.S. map on next slide for complete list.
1 Based on recent Brookings analysis of Top 95 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs). Our analyses used Brookings’ definition of a suburb. 2 Academic research suggests the 20% threshold is applicable to poverty
at the neighborhood level; our analysis is up‐leveled to the city/town view, and we therefore use a 10% threshold as a proxy, as recommended by Census analysts. 3 Galster, George. “The Mechanisms of
Neighborhood Effects.” Wayne State University. February 23, 2010
Based on interviews with experts, research and Bridgespan analysis. Additional sources include the ACS 2011 5‐year estimates and 2000 Decennial Census summary files.

6. What is the scale and scope of the problem?
Concentration of poverty as a percentage of total population in cities of Top 100 US
6
Though suburban poverty is spread across the nation, the suburbs of metropolitan regions in the
South and West have been most severely impacted.
The top 5 MSAs with the largest
number of suburban poor:
• Los Angeles‐Long Beach‐
Santa Ana, CA (1.2 million)
• New York‐Northern New Jersey‐
Long Island, NY‐NJ‐PA (.9 million)
• Miami‐Fort Lauderdale‐Pompano
Beach, FL (.8 million)
• Atlanta‐Sandy Springs‐Marietta,
GA (.8 million)
• Chicago‐Joliet‐Naperville, IL‐IN‐WI
(.7 million)
The top 5 MSAs with the highest
concentrations of suburban
poverty (~4% of total suburban poor
in the top 100 MSAs):
Top 5 MSAs with highest
•McAllen‐Edinburg‐Mission, TX
concentration of suburban poverty1
(39%)
Top 5 MSAs with highest number of
•El Paso, TX (36%)
suburban poor
•Bakersfield‐Delano, CA (27%)
•Suburbs Primary cities
Modesto, CA (23%)
•Fresno, CA (22%)
Across the top MSAs, concentration of poverty in urban areas is not highly correlated with concentration of poverty in
adjacent suburbs.
1 Each MSA represents a distinct geographical region.
Note: The concentration of suburban poverty is based on the total number of poor divided by the total population of all areas within a Metropolitan Statistical Area minus its primary cities.
Based on interviews with experts, research and Bridgespan analysis. Additional sources include the ACS 2011 5‐year estimates and 2000 Decennial Census summary files.
MSAs in 2011
<10% 10‐20% 20‐30% >30% <10% 10‐20% 20‐30% >30%

7. What does suburban poverty look like?
7
Suburbs defy stereotypes and categorization; they vary across the country and even within metro regions.
Driver of
Poverty
Spatial
arrange‐ment
Political
environ‐ment
Houston Washington, DC Seattle
Immigration – Houston’s suburbs have
seen their poverty rate increase by 4%
from 2000‐2011 to a total poverty rate
of 14%. Immigration drove nearly a
third (29%) of the growth in poverty.
Gentrification – One nonprofit service
provider, based in Washington DC, has
experienced a pattern of following its
clients out to the suburbs due to the
city’s escalating costs of living.
Multiple drivers and extreme
inequality – Poverty is on the rise due
to migration/immigration, the
economic recession, and growing
wealth disparities. South King County
demonstrates an extreme gap between
the affluent, white suburbs east of the
city and the highly diverse and poor
neighborhoods south of the city.
Lack of urban core – Even
neighborhoods in Houston locally
considered “downtown” have the low
population densities and sprawling
infrastructure characteristic of suburbs.
High dispersion – The distance
between two locations within the
metro area can be over 100 miles
apart, according to one nonprofit
serving the Greater Houston area. This
car dependency can lead to the poor
feeling isolated from community and
services.
Diverse adjacent counties –
Montgomery County and Prince
George’s County, which together
encompass the suburbs outside of DC,
are “worlds apart” according to one
nonprofit who serves both areas. They
present different needs with Prince
George’s County being much poorer
and lacking a strong schooling system.
New look of poverty – Compared with
urban poverty, the poor in the suburbs
are hidden behind manicured multi‐family
housing units, which mask the
stark disparities in income level and
educational outcomes.
Political climate and attention is
focused on job creation generally
rather than the poor.
There is limited political coordination,
though families frequently move across
jurisdictions. This leads to challenges of
access as a result of strict regulations
surrounding local funding and grants.
Local leadership is composed solely of
white, affluent residents who are not
representative of the diverse
communities in Seattle’s suburbs.
Based on interviews with experts, research and Bridgespan analysis. Additional sources include the ACS 2011 1‐year estimates and 2000 Decennial Census summary files.

8. What is the impact on the lives of poor or
vulnerable people?
8
There is unequal access to the benefits often associated with suburbs: jobs, housing, healthcare, and education.
Impact on the Lives of the Poor or Vulnerable
The movement of jobs away from city centers to suburbs has been a driver of suburban population growth, but the location and physical accessibility of jobs
across suburbs varies greatly. Thirty percent of the suburban poor were unemployed in 2011, a rate that reflects the lack of transportation access, drastic cuts
in suburban jobs during the recession, and the skills mismatch with living wage jobs.
Low‐income suburbs served by transit are only able to access 4% of jobs within a 45 minute commute and 25% within 90 minutes on average.
Cutbacks in construction, manufacturing and retail, major industries in the suburbs, accounted for over 50% of the national job loss from 2007‐10.
Only 12% of the suburban poor held a Bachelor’s degree or higher and only 30% were high school graduates in 2011.
The suburban poor lack access to affordable quality healthcare, exacerbated by limited transportation and provider availability in the suburbs.
• Research undertaken in Boston, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Miami, and Seattle by the Center for Studying Health System Change, revealed that suburbs
provide worse access to affordable health providers, including preventative, primary and specialty care. As a result, emergency departments become
overtaxed, even more than in urban areas, and lack the funding to meet growing demand.
The housing market presents unique difficulties for the suburban poor, including vulnerability to foreclosures and lack of rental options.
• Suburbs are characterized by high rates of homeownership, in part incentivized by federal policy: 36% of the poor owned homes in the suburbs in 2010,
compared with 20% in urban areas. Three‐quarters of foreclosures occurred in the suburbs, driving further vulnerability.
• Access to rental housing for the vulnerable has historically been confined to areas with high poverty due to real estate markets and zoning laws.
• A Center for Housing Policy study found that working suburban families pay more for transportation than housing, despite rapid depreciation in these
assets. (The average cost of vehicle ownership, fuel, and maintenance is $7,000 per year.)
High‐quality education is often a feature of the suburban dream, but achievement gaps instead perpetuate inequality.
• In Montgomery County, MD, home to some of the highest performing schools nationally, report achievement gaps of 40 percentage points between
wealthy and poor students.
While suburbs have civic assets such as volunteering and embedded faith‐based organizations, on the whole they lack the organizing capacity and safety net
networks to address growing community needs.
• Local councils may resist supporting community development structures, instead preferring to deflect the poor’s needs to neighboring municipalities:
“residents feel isolated and disempowered in their poverty because mechanisms for community organizing either never developed or are limited.”
Certain vulnerable populations, including immigrants and single‐mother households, face unique barriers to lifting themselves out of poverty in the suburbs.
• Over 50% of poor suburban households (1.4 million) are single‐mother families, whose circumstances are exacerbated in the suburbs by limited access to
childcare and long distances between jobs, homes, and support services.
• 2.6 million of the suburban poor (16%) are immigrants and demonstrate unique needs, including culturally competent services and political representation.
Based on interviews with experts, research and Bridgespan analysis. Additional sources include the ACS 2011 5‐year estimates and 2000 Decennial Census summary files.

9. System Failures: Underlying constraints that exacerbate the vulnerability of the suburban poor
Housing voucher programs give the
urban poor the choice to move to
suburbs to access benefits like safety
and better schools. This can create
new pockets of poverty in the suburbs.
9
What are the root causes at play? What systems
failures are causing or exacerbating the problem?
Suburban poverty is driven both by poor people moving to the suburbs and people in the suburbs getting
poorer. Unique system failures in the suburbs exacerbate the problem.
Labor Market
Middle‐wage jobs have been eliminated
and are being replaced by either high
wage, high skill work that does not match
the abilities of many poor people or low‐wage
work that is not sufficient to move
families out of poverty.
Governance System
Significant challenges exist in working with local
government systems given the multiple
jurisdictions present in the suburbs. An urban
core could be surrounded by up to 28 different
suburban counties, making provision and funding
of services highly fragmented.
Safety Net Network
Suburbs typically have inadequate safety nets for the
growing number of poor. One study found that half of
suburban municipalities lacked any registered
nonprofits providing food assistance or employment,
mental health, and substance abuse services. The
nonprofits that do exist are overstretched.
Root Causes: Main drivers that directly contribute to vulnerability
Poor Moving
to Suburbs
Suburbs
Exacerbating
Poverty
Urban Cost of Living
The high and rising cost of living in
urban cities is driving existing poor
and near poor out of the cities to the
lower cost suburbs, though the scale
of this effect is debated.
Immigration
Immigrants, who are more likely to
be low income, are increasingly
moving directly to the suburbs in
search of affordable housing,
better schools, and jobs.
A trend in jobs moving out from city
centers has pushed those seeking
Job Loss
Job Sprawl
employment to the suburbs.
However, jobs are unequally
distributed across suburbs.
The Great Recession hit suburbs harder
than past downturns; heavily suburban
industries like manufacturing and
construction had the most job losses.
Structured Relocation
Affluent Moving Out
As the level of poverty rises in suburbs
and urban centers get revitalized, the
affluent leave the suburbs, taking their
tax revenue with them.
Foreclosure Crisis
The relative or perceived affordability
of housing drew people to suburbs,
where they were hard hit and
rendered immobile by foreclosures.
Transportation Infrastructure
Limited public transportation options
disadvantage those who cannot afford
the high cost of car ownership (e.g.,
monthly payments, repair, insurance, and
fuel) and limit their access to
opportunities and services.
Structural Discrimination and Racism
The non‐white poor increasingly find themselves in
concentrated areas of suburban poverty. This clustering
stems from historic discriminatory housing policies and
the continuing effects of structural racism in the
suburbs. It is further exacerbated by affluent residents’
denial of the existence of both increasing poverty and
racism in their communities.
Based on expert interviews, research, and Bridgespan analysis. Additional sources include Brookings research.

10. What are the prevailing perspectives on this
problem?
“We work from the assumption that this is the new normal…those most susceptible to economic downturns have the hardest
time bouncing back.” – Suburban service provider
• Experts argue that suburban poverty is different from traditional urban poverty and has unique drivers and solutions that
urgently require funding and attention.
• This view holds that the unique assets of suburbs are not accessible by the poor.
“People in suburbs have a belief about themselves that is different than reality…people say poverty is not a problem in their
communities, but the numbers show otherwise” – Academic
• Nationally, the U.S. is experiencing increasing poverty rates and heightened levels of inequality: 15% of the nation’s
population was poor in 2010, the highest since 1993 according to the Census Bureau. Many of the poor reside in suburbs,
yet suburban communities are reluctant to accept the reality of their changing neighborhoods or personal circumstances.
• Some service providers are skeptical of the data on suburban poverty and the poor’s inability to access safety net services.
10
While there is still a general lack of alignment on the problem of suburban poverty, experts and
practitioners agree that advancing a suburban/urban poverty binary is less useful for identifying solutions
to the issue than is the metro‐regional frame.
“Hands‐down being poor in the suburbs is better on almost every dimension than being poor in the urban center…promising
solutions are ones that move the poor to the suburbs” – Researcher
• Suburbs are better situated to break historic trends of highly concentrated poverty in minority‐heavy neighborhoods given
their lack of racial diversity: 42% of suburban poor were non‐Hispanic whites and only 19% were black, whereas in urban
areas, only 26% of the poor were non‐Hispanic whites and 31% were black in 2011.
• This view, as advocated by civil rights experts and others, holds that the best method for tackling entrenched
intergenerational poverty is to integrate previously segregated neighborhoods along racial and socioeconomic lines.
• Poverty is most detrimental when it occurs in areas of high concentration, suburbs are much better positioned to help
individuals overcome poverty: nearly 30% of the suburban poor live in areas where <10% of the population is poor,
whereas only 1% of the urban poor live in areas where <10% of the population is poor.
Suburban
Poverty is a
Unique And
Growing
Problem
Suburban
Poverty Does
Not Really
Exist
Suburban
Poverty is a
Step Towards
the Solution
“There is no distinction between the urban and suburban poor, I see a single string being pulled through them both” – Provider
• Suburban poverty largely “looks like” urban poverty along multiple demographic dimensions including gender, age, and
family structure: 56% of suburban poor were women compared with 55% in urban areas; 34% of suburban poor were 18
and under compared with 35% in urban areas in 2011.
• Furthermore, the needs of those in poverty are the same no matter where one lives. Suburban poor face a lack of living
wage jobs (30% were unemployed in 2011, compared with 31% in urban areas) and low educational attainment rates (12%
held Bachelor’s degrees or higher in 2011, equivalent to the 12% completion rate in urban areas).
• Certain service providers do not find a useful distinction between urban and suburban poverty and think this either/or
approach limits comprehensive responses.
Suburban
Poverty is a
Problem but
No Different
Than Urban
Poverty
Suburban
Poverty is the
Problem
Suburban
Poverty Is a
Part of the
Solution
Based on expert interviews, research, and Bridgespan analysis; statistics are from 2011 unless otherwise specified.

11. What has and has not worked?
While highlighting the unique challenges of suburban poverty is key to raising awareness, the most effective solutions to suburban poverty
What Challenges Persist to Scaling Interventions What Has Worked
•Brookings research: Brookings’ work on this topic has reached
foundations, some government officials, and many academics and
service providers, indicating that there is a hunger for additional
knowledge. Brookings released the book Confronting Suburban
Poverty in America in May 2013.
•Community mobilization efforts: When suburbs have been able to
organize, they can have a voice, such as a NY organization that
protested Chase’s mortgage modification policies.
•Metro‐regional approaches: Some regions have been able to
implement approaches that benefit the suburbs as well as the
broader area, such as shared school districts in Hartford or land
banks that build a portfolio of spaces, including lucrative
properties that subsidize blighted areas.
•Cross‐jurisdictional collaborations: Such partnerships allow
organizations to launch in new communities, provide additional
services, and gain scale to attract funding. Seven King County
school districts working together to close the achievement gap in
their region have united public, private, and nonprofit
stakeholders to share best practices and resources. IFF works with
CDIs to share data systems across suburban regions.
•Building local support: Gaining local buy‐in, finding a political
champion, and drawing on local strengths and leadership, are
critical to effective integration in a community. As one suburban
provider put it, “we have our own sandbox here and you have to
learn to play in it to work effectively.”
•Diverse funding sources: A lack of available funding means
organizations have to interweave government, foundation,
individual, and investment funding to grow their overhead and
capacity. The Neighborhood Centers in Houston has effectively
used this approach to grow to a $200+ million organization.
11
have taken place at a metro‐regional level. The potential to scale urban programs remains relatively untested.
Efforts to
change
perceptions
about
suburbs:
Efforts to
produce
metro‐regional
systemic
change:
Efforts to
implement
inter‐ventions
to
suburban
poverty:
•Few voices: The early, small, and fragmented state of this issue has not yet
generated a significant perspective shift.
•Misperceptions and denial of issue: Advocates face resistance to the reality of the
needs in the suburbs from many angles. In addition to funders and policy leaders
remaining focused on urban areas, suburban residents and leaders are themselves
unaware or hesitant to acknowledge local poverty. “Why would we want to do this?
It will only encourage [poor people] to stay or more to come.” ‐ Response to a
nonprofit’s attempted expansion in the suburbs.
•Jurisdictional limitations: The high number of competing governance authorities in
suburbs limit efforts to work metro‐regionally due to difficulties in sharing funding,
services, knowledge, and networks across jurisdictional lines. One suburban service
provider described having to turn away a teen living a few blocks away because his
home was in a different jurisdiction. Furthermore, municipalities are often resistant
to working together, and in some cases zoning limits where services can be built.
•Lack of metro‐regional coordination: Several organizations cite the need for a
coordinated response to poverty at a metro‐regional level. Given the many
municipalities and diverse types of leadership in each area, one provider lamented,
“These leaders are not all in the same place ever,” which limits comprehensive
work.
•Limited ability to replicate programs: Uniform replication of urban programs in the
suburbs does not account for the suburbs’ unique needs such as transportation
access and local politics; one suburban provider said that trying to scale from an
urban program is like “asking someone to brush their teeth with your toothbrush.”
This makes replication across suburbs resource‐intensive.
•Funding linked to jurisdictional boundaries: Jurisdictional boundaries and project‐level
funding limit organizations’ ability to work effectively, such as what happened
with a Chicago area collaborative where 19 communities jointly applied for
government funding, only to receive separate funding streams that voided the
benefits of their collaboration.
Leveraging solutions proven to address urban poverty and testing how those approaches could be adjusted to work in
the suburban and metro‐regional context may provide a good starting point for understanding what works

12. 12
2) Dynamism Assessment
Purpose
The Dynamism Assessment aims to identify the primary opportunities that could be catalyzed to address the
problem. It also aims to identify emerging issues and future trends that could influence these opportunities,
and the potential risks or uncertainties that could inhibit transformative change.
Key Findings
• The issue of suburban poverty has the potential for dynamism; however, given the early stage of the issue it is
hard to tell in which direction the space will move.
• There are a limited number of forces creating opportunities around suburban poverty . These nascent forces
revolve around the slowly increasing interest in and interventions for the problem, as well as the changing
political and economic importance of the suburbs.
• Emerging tipping points demonstrate the urgency in building a robust conversation about suburban poverty.
Potential positive tipping points relate to an increase in attention and solutions to the problem, while negative
tipping points could result from changes to governmental budgets and structure. The national economic recovery
will certainly play a role, although it is too early to tell in which way it will push the issue, and may be difficult to
influence. Similarly, ancillary trends around immigration reform, the housing market, and regressive tax policies
may affect the future scale and impact of suburban poverty.
• Given the early stage of this problem, a number of opportunities for philanthropy exist, from identifying which
innovations in implementation are required to bring urban programs to the suburban context to developing the
discourse on the problem towards a shared understanding of the problem. Place‐based work is likely to be
required, as interventions cannot be scaled without modification given the diverse nature of suburbs.
• The largest potential risk for suburban poverty at this point would be a discourse that positions suburban
poverty against urban poverty in a zero‐sum game. Given the historical and racial drivers of urban poverty, this
type of frame is not good for poverty alleviation efforts in the United States generally and could create division in
place of the needed cooperation between urban and suburban service providers.

13. What forces are creating windows of opportunity?
13
Forces Contributing to Dynamism Areas of Dynamism
• In the past few years, there has been a slow growth in attention on the topic by thought and policy leaders.
However, practitioners recognize that more work needs to be done. The Brookings Institution has been a leader
in researching this topic and released a book on the subject in May 2013 (Confronting Suburban Poverty in
America); the Council on Foundations for the first time included a panel on suburban poverty at their annual
conference in 2013; the New York Times, CNBC, and others have published relevant articles; and the Ford
Foundation has made metro‐regional solutions an explicit priority. HUD, under the Obama administration, has
expressed a commitment to racial and socioeconomic integration, a key issue for the suburbs.
• Slowly increasing
interest in suburban
poverty,
• Emergence of
interventions for
suburban poverty,
• Growing
understanding of the
potential of metro‐regional
level
planning,
• Rising political power
of suburbs,
• Although the economic and demographic changes in suburbs have been mostly unaddressed, some efforts are
beginning to emerge, from the Road Map Project on education in suburban Seattle to a Chicago area 23‐
municipality collaboration focused on affordable housing and community development. Some existing
organizations, such as IFF in the Midwest and Neighborhood Centers in Houston, are also starting to focus their
efforts on suburban poverty.* With the exception of IFF, all of these interventions are very local in nature, given
the critical importance of local context to a solution’s impact model.
• Metro‐regional planning has existed as a concept for decades, but has rarely been applied to socio‐economic
issues. However, the people involved with suburban poverty recognize the importance of working at a
metropolitan level to share resources. In Minnesota, the Twin Cities’ unique cross‐jurisdictional tax pooling
system allowed the region to support efforts to smooth income disparities.
• New voting patterns in 2016 and 2020 will highlight the increasing political importance of Latinos as the country
shifts to a “majority minority” future. Latinos currently comprise 31% of the suburban poor, and the number of
Latinos in the suburbs increased by 81% from 2000 to 2011. Additionally, recent elections showed that suburbs
have political weight: presidential candidates campaigned to win suburban swing districts holding reservoirs of
undecided voters.
• If current trends continue, politicians seeking the Hispanic vote may focus on the suburbs as a source of support.
The focus on suburbs as contentious swing districts also means that residents who band together have leverage
to demand policies that could alleviate suburban poverty. However, Republican congressmen from poor districts
in Arizona, Florida, and other states recently voted for a budget proposal that would decimate funding for
assistance programs, indicating that the growing numbers of poor, on their own, might not be enough to gain
political influence.
*IFF and Neighborhood Centers is further described in Landscape Assessment. Road Map Project is a cradle‐to‐career education reform effort across seven districts in South King
County, in which stakeholders have set joint goals and metrics and work together to design and implement strategies. The Chicago Southland Housing and Community
Development Collaborative helps secure otherwise siloed government funding across the region for use to rehabilitate properties, form land banks, invest in transportation, and
otherwise support community development.

14. What are the primary opportunities that could address
this problem?
14
The areas of opportunity with the most potential are to create a shared identity for the issue of
suburban poverty, and to build metro‐regional approaches
Slowly increasing interest in suburban
poverty
Emergence of interventions for
suburban poverty
Growing understanding of potential for
metro‐level planning
In the past few years there has been a slow
emergence of research, government, media,
and funder attention to this issue, creating a
small amount of momentum that could be built
upon
Although this issue remains largely unaddressed,
a few recent efforts to build alliances,
interventions, and expansion to the suburbs
create an opportunity to build evidence of best
practices and success
Highlighted initiatives reflect the most dynamic opportunities for further exploration.
Practitioners and researchers agree that any
effort to address suburban poverty needs to
occur at a metro‐regional level, so interest in
this approach opens opportunities for successful
interventions
Create a shared identity: Experts agree that
the necessary first step towards addressing
suburban poverty is building awareness.
Acting on this opportunity could lead to an
uptick in funding, political action, and
interventions. Specific opportunities include:
• Funding research that would build
knowledge around the problem, including
understanding differences between metro
regions, evaluating interventions, and
deciphering trends.
• Facilitating convenings to bring the issue
to the fore of conversations at national
conferences and publicize progress.
Build metro‐regional approaches: Any suburban poverty intervention will necessarily be
collaborative at a metro‐regional level. This will require coordination and partnerships with local
institutions with knowledge of the context and existing relationships. Specific opportunities
include:
• Testing the modifications required to implement community‐building and social programs
known to have had success in urban areas in the suburban context.
• Developing a tax pooling system, like the one in the Twin Cities, that would help spread tax
revenue evenly across the region.
• Establishing a single table at which the many different, and often disparate, players in a region
– multiple governments, citizens, nonprofits, private sector representatives, and foundations –
can come together to coordinate efforts.
• Facilitating cross‐district systems, such as the school system in the Hartford area or the
housing system in the Baltimore area, that support equitable distribution of assets and
diversity across areas.
• Demonstrating effective interventions, by investing in growth, evaluation, and potentially
replication of the most innovative existing organizations such as IFF, LAYC, Neighborhood
Centers, Alliance for Human Services, or South King Council of Human Services (all described in
the Landscape Assessment), or by developing new interventions.

15. What potential tipping points are emerging?
15
Positive
Potential
Tipping
Points
(Actions &
events that
could catalyze
large‐scale
positive
change)
Negative
Potential
Tipping
Points
(Thresholds
beyond which
there is no
going back)
Too Early
to Tell
Description What would have to happen
to reach this tipping point?
• Brookings Book, Confronting Suburban Poverty in America,
released in May 2013. Given the limited landscape of national
players around suburban poverty, this publication could significantly
elevate the amount of attention on the issue. “We are waiting to see
who will carry the torch of the Brookings book.” – Researcher
• Increased interest from foundations in funding
interventions to suburban poverty.
• Increased interest in the issue from academic and policy
circles due to their recognition of and response to the
urgency of the problem.
• Demonstration of Scalable Solutions. The small number of
interventions and lack of proven solutions to reduce suburban
poverty mean that the emergence of effective and replicable
interventions would provide momentum and funding opportunities
for the issue.
• Emergence of additional promising solutions like IFF.
• Successful replication of a reputable urban solution like
Harlem Children’s Zone to the suburbs.*
• Continuation of innovation around key issues like
foreclosures and rescuing underwater mortgages.
• Continuation of Governmental Budget Cuts. Insufficient
government funding is already steering the problem of suburban
poverty in a negative direction, with cuts often hitting the suburbs
the hardest. Further cuts could decimate an already thin safety net.
• Decreased funding for state and local services due to cuts
to federal discretionary spending and/or the austerity
measures.
• Reduction in low‐income benefits programs due to the
sequester.
• Spread of Local Government Control. In California there is a
proposal to move budget control of public safety and social services
from the state to each county, harming the poorer suburban
counties with tiny budgets.
• Widespread adoption of realignment to local government
budget control.
• Decrease in statewide smoothing of resources.
These could potentially be tipping points (positive or negative) but will require further monitoring to define and size:
• National Economic Recovery. Many of the key drivers of suburban poverty (e.g., job loss, foreclosures) were tied directly to
the recent recession, and the national economic state will likely have strong effects in the suburbs. However, in order for the
economy to help alleviate suburban poverty, the recovery will need to include the creation of living wage jobs accessible to the
suburban poor, both in terms of skills and geography. At the same time, it is too early to tell whether or how strongly the economy
will rebound; there is the potential of economic recovery slowing and continuing to exacerbate the underlying problems of
suburban poverty.
Based on expert interviews, research, and Bridgespan analysis.
*Harlem Children’s Zone provides comprehensive services (including parenting workshops, preschool programs, schooling, and health programs) to a 100‐block radius in Harlem in an
effort to break the cycle of intergenerational poverty. Replication attempts are currently underway in cities like Los Angeles, but it is too early to judge their success.

16. What are emerging issues and future trends
that could influence these opportunities?
Immigration Reform
suburban job growth drew new immigrants seeking work, and in the West where
there are historically high numbers of poor suburban immigrants. In the Houston
area, immigrants accounted for 29% of the growth in suburban poverty in the 2000s,
and in Washington, DC they accounted for 42%. By 2009 20% of the suburban poor
were foreign‐born.
suburban poverty no matter its outcome. Comprehensive reform that opens
pathways to citizenship for undocumented immigrants would increase the suburban
population able to participate in the US political and economic systems. Legal
documentation increases people’s access to critical social services, schools, and job
opportunities that can help them climb out of poverty.
• Increased numbers of suburban immigrants able to vote will strengthen a suburb’s
civic structure and increase support for government policies that help the suburban
poor. An increased Latino vote even has the potential to change the national political
landscape because some forecast it could contribute to turning traditionally red
states like Texas and Arizona blue.
16
National Economic Health
• The suburbs have felt certain effects of the economic recession
particularly acutely as the housing market crash, loss of jobs, and
government funding cuts disproportionately hit the suburbs. Although
in past recessions suburbs have experienced less unemployment
increases than cities, in the 2007 recession unemployment and
poverty trends were very similar across cities and suburbs. Economic
downturns generally affect the poor and non‐white most, which are
both growing populations in the suburbs. “When the economy has a
cold, the non‐white economy has pneumonia. It hits them doubly hard
– Academic expert.
• Even if the economy improves, suburban poverty may not dissipate.
The movement of jobs from urban to suburban areas is expected to
continue, and future job projections are in lower‐wage sectors. While
middle‐wage jobs were 60% of job losses in the recession, they were
only 22% of job growth during recovery, while low‐wage jobs are now
growing more than they shrank during the recession.
• Immigration is a driver of suburban poverty, particularly in the South, where high
• Given these growing numbers, immigration reform will have a weighty impact on
• Alternatively, a lack of comprehensive reform will keep a significant portion of the
suburban poor locked out of the economy and further decrease their likelihood of
emerging from poverty.
Housing Market Health Regressive Tax Policies
• Over the past 30 years, states in the South and West have favored increases to
sales taxes, which hurt the poor disproportionately. Meanwhile, states in the
North and East have moved in the opposite direction by preserving or increasing
progressive taxes such as the income tax. This problem may accelerate, as
governors of several Southern states are considering cutting income and
corporate taxes and raising the sales tax.
• The South and West are also where the MSAs with the highest suburban poverty
rates are located, meaning that the suburbs hardest hit in terms of income may
also be hard hit by tax rates.
• There is significant national interest in helping the housing market
recover. As a result, there is some innovation around solutions, from
local counseling programs to a brand new and untested company that
encourages suburbs to use eminent domain to claim their citizens’
mortgages and provide them relief.
Based on expert interviews, research, and Bridgespan analysis. Homeownership and economic health data from Brookings; foreclosure data from Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco; tax
information from Johns Hopkins via New York Times article; immigration data from Brookings, Pew, and the New York Times

17. What are potential risks or uncertainties?
The biggest risk for suburban poverty will be if the problem does not gain the necessary attention and
• If addressing suburban poverty becomes persistently framed as a trade‐off with addressing urban poverty, in
which a finite amount of attention and resources must be given to one or the other, advocates for the suburbs will
enter a zero sum game, which they will likely lose given deeply entrenched interests in helping the urban poor.
• Despite the nation‐wide poverty rate of 15%, the highest in decades, and growing income inequality in the US,
poverty is not currently a popular political topic, as the federal government is focused on building ladders of
opportunity for the middle class. Far less than 1% of news stories from major publications are on this topic. As long
as poverty is not a central focus for discussion and reforms, suburban poverty has little chance of gaining
attention.
• Only a handful of interventions have demonstrated success in improving outcomes for poor people in the suburbs;
almost no organizations have successfully scaled beyond a single region given the importance of local context in
addressing suburban poverty. Billions of dollars are spent on programs to reduce urban poverty every year but
urban poverty rates continue to grow; suburban poverty risks facing a similar fate.
• Given the rapidly growing rates of foreign‐born poor in the suburbs, immigration reform will have a strong impact
on suburban poverty no matter its outcome. Paths to citizenship for undocumented populations could create new
economic, educational, and political possibilities. Alternatively, a lack of wide‐scale reform will keep a growing
portion of the suburban poor locked out of the economy.
17
focus needed to move forward with finding and implementing effective solutions.
ZERO‐SUM WITH
URBAN POVERTY
STATUS QUO
POLITICAL ATTENTION
ON MIDDLE CLASS
IMMIGRATION REFORM
NATIONAL ECONOMIC
HEALTH
POLITICAL LEADERSHIP
Risks
Uncertainties
FUEL COSTS
• The suburbs have felt the effects of the recession strongly due to the housing market crash, loss of jobs, and
funding cuts. Both the pace at which the overall economy recovers and how much this recovery reaches the
suburbs affects how quickly they can emerge from these losses.
• Suburban poverty has not been an issue on which leaders want to spend political capital. A prominent local or
national political leader taking an interest in suburban poverty for campaign, economic, personal, or other reasons
would significantly increase visibility for this topic and open up funding and intervention possibilities.
• Similarly, a presidential commission on the topic, legislation like the War on Poverty, or even the post‐recession
stimulus package, that targets federal attention and funding to the suburbs could propel solutions forward.
• Suburbanites rely heavily on cars instead of public transit and homeowners are more responsible for heating their
homes. Therefore a spike in fuel costs would be a significant burden on the suburban poor.
LACK OF EFFECTIVE
SCALABLE SOLUTIONS
• Given the early state of this issue, there is a significant risk that funders, public officials, and service providers will
continue to be unaware of or disinterested in suburban poverty. The time is now: the current relocation patterns
of huge numbers of Millennials and Baby Boomers give suburbs a key ten‐year window of opportunity to establish
their position and for this issue to begin to coalesce and gain traction.
Based on expert interviews, research, and Bridgespan analysis.. Poverty rate from US Census.

18. 18
3) Landscape Assessment
Purpose
The Landscape Assessment aims to identify the key players and opinion leaders in the field, what
organizations are doing innovative work, who provides funding, and the gaps in funding.
Key Findings
• Overall, suburban poverty is an issue in its infancy, and the funding landscape surrounding it is limited.
• There are few efforts toward and little awareness of the problem, with The Brookings Institution producing the
dominant research and publications on the topic. Resources and attention remain focused on urban poverty, an
as yet unresolved and still growing (though more slowly than suburban poverty) national problem. This lack of
attention is exacerbated by the fact that poverty overall is not a national political priority.
• Resulting from the lack of awareness, engagement in suburban poverty is limited across the funding field, and
funding is insufficient at all levels. Funding is disproportionately allocated to urban areas due to a variety of
factors including perception of need and historical giving patterns. Suburban nonprofits are often unable to
access the little funding available to them due to their low visibility and lack of internal fundraising and
evaluation capacity.
• Another result of the lack of attention to suburban poverty is that little is known about what works to improve
outcomes for the suburban poor, and the necessarily local nature of interventions means that almost no
organizations have scaled nationally. The handful of organizations that are doing innovative work operate on a
local scale, drawing on partnerships and local support. However, success stories remain elusive, and local context,
jurisdictional barriers, and fragmented funding still hinder scaling. Practitioners identify metro‐regional solutions
as the most likely to be effective.
• Given the early stage of this issue, the landscape needs to coalesce around increasing awareness and laying the
groundwork for interventions through building a shared identity, identifying and communicating what works,
and attacking systemic barriers.

19. Who are the key players and opinion leaders in the field?
19
There are limited efforts toward and awareness of suburban poverty; leadership and perception
Representative players and opinion leaders, from a relatively small field:
tanks/
Think experts
Philanthropy
Government
Private sector
Non‐‐profits
remain focused on poverty as an inner‐city problem
The Brookings Institution is the primary source of knowledge about suburban poverty, publishing both analyses of
Census and original data and descriptions of the challenges and needs of the field; all work on suburban poverty draws
from this research. University planning programs are not training future planners to address this issue; only 2% of
planning courses mention suburbs in the description, while 46% mention urban areas. At a broader level, major news
outlet coverage of poverty is negligible.
National philanthropy: Ford Foundation is the only major national poverty funder to lead initiatives specifically including
suburban poverty, and funded the Confronting Suburban Poverty in America book. Other major funders, including Annie
E. Casey Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, have funded Brookings research on suburban poverty and related issues. It
is difficult to know to what degree other foundations are addressing this issue without explicitly focusing on it.
Local philanthropy: A few regional funders, such as The Chicago Community Trust and Kresge in Detroit, are leading
initiatives around suburban poverty.
Federal government: The Department of Housing and Urban Development recently launched a few metro‐regional
revitalization efforts, such as the Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative and the Sustainable Communities Initiative,
that incentivize interdisciplinary locally‐led efforts to improve distressed areas, including suburbs. Additional
government efforts around foreclosure relief and job creation may benefit the suburbs, but are not directly targeted
there. “Poverty has fallen off the radar screen…the middle class has occupied the political dialogue” – Former federal
government employee.
Corporations: Private giving accounts for very little suburban nonprofit funding, but a few corporations such as AT&T
and Chevron have devoted some philanthropy to suburban areas, though it is driven by a public relations lens.
Some metro areas, such as Chicago, D.C., Denver, and Seattle, have inspired innovative nonprofit‐driven solutions that
are collaborative, locally‐driven, and use funding creatively in a metro‐regional approach to begin to address suburban
poverty; such efforts are early‐stage, and poverty outcomes have not yet been measured.
“This issue is in its infancy…we need more people in this space; we don’t care about credit, we just
care about getting things done” – National funder
Based on expert interviews, research, and Bridgespan analysis

20. What organizations are doing innovative and/or high‐impact
work?
A scan for organizations addressing suburban poverty produced only a few high‐impact organizations.
Alliance for Human Services, Lake County: The Alliance is a new collaborative seeking
to enhance coordination and effectiveness of human service organizations through
advocacy, developing collaborative programs, and managing a centralized data and
technology platform. Success factors: Collaboration and partnerships, local support,
metro‐ regional approach
20
Only one has scaled beyond a single MSA.
Based on expert interviews, research, and Bridgespan analysis
Latin American Youth Center (LAYC), Washington DC region: LAYC is
a multi‐service youth organization providing multilingual programs in
social services, education, and community wellness. The organization
launched in urban DC in 1974, then expanded to suburban
Montgomery and Prince George counties in 2005. Success factors:
Partnerships, local support, diverse funding
South King Council of Human Services,
South King County: The Council, founded
in 1987, is an umbrella organization
providing coordination and support for
human services organizations in the region,
particularly focusing on drawing funding to
suburban Seattle and increasing nonprofit
capacity and networks. Success factors:
Collaboration, metro‐regional approach
IFF, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, and
Wisconsin: IFF, a Community Development
Financial Institution that strengthens nonprofits
through lending and consulting, grew from urban
Chicago to a regional level within a few years,
becoming one of the few suburban organizations
to successfully cross state lines. Success factors:
Partnerships, local support
Neighborhood Centers, Houston region:
Neighborhood Centers is a large human services
organization that uses an asset‐based approach
to provide resources, education, and connections
to underserved neighborhoods. It was founded
over 100 years ago and has since expanded into
all corners of the Houston region. Success
factors: Local support, partnerships, diverse
funding, metro‐regional approach
There are also some metro‐regional interventions that help address suburban poverty.
• Baltimore Housing Mobility Program is a specialized metro‐regional voucher program that works across sectors to help low‐income families access
private market housing in low‐poverty white neighborhoods through streamlined administration of rent vouchers paired with pre‐move and two years of
post‐move counseling. It includes access to employment and transportation assistance, along with landlord education and other features.
• Minnesota Fiscal Disparities Program is a property tax pooling policy in the Twin Cities that promotes structured metro‐regional level development and
improves equitable distribution of resources across communities; nine such programs exist nationwide but only this one operates across counties.
• Hartford Region Open Choice Program is a cross‐district school integration model that allows suburban students to attend public schools in urban areas,
and vice‐versa, and supports interdistrict magnet schools.

21. Who is providing funding in this space?
Philanthropy Overview
21
National Philanthropic Landscape Regional Philanthropic Landscape
• Less than 8% of total 2011 funding from the top 15 foundations
focused on poverty alleviation in the U.S. went to relevant
organizations located in the suburbs.
• In three of four sampled regions, at least 4x more regional
funding went to urban, compared with suburban, areas.
• Regional funders are limited in their ability to fund suburbs due
to their small size, restrictive charters, reliance on well‐established
channels of grantmaking, and lack of nonprofit
capacity to apply for grants,
2007 Giving from Regional Foundations
2011 Giving from Top National Poverty‐focused Donors
“Look at [a recent project]: 85%
of the funding is in the urban
center, and 15% is in the
suburban county when 85% of
the kids are in the suburbs.
People fund what they know.”
– Suburban service provider
National note: Suburban organizations are nonprofits with a mailing address in the suburbs, but do not necessarily provide services in suburban areas; also does not include nonprofits
located in urban areas that serve suburbs; “Irrelevant non‐urban” include universities, obvious local, urban, national, and/or rural focus, environmental focus, clergy renewal
programs, journalism; others; Top poverty donors identified by Foundation Center 2007 data and include Casey, Ford, Knight, McKnight, Clark, Kellogg, Mott, Kresge, Kauffman, Starr,
Lilly, Weinberg, Citi, NYCT, CFNCR; data includes grants >=$10K (NYCT includes grants >=$20K). Regional note: 2007 data sourced from Brookings; Detroit results attributed to declining
population in Detroit. Based on expert interviews, research, and Bridgespan analysis.

22. 22
Who is providing funding in this space?
Funder Examples
Foundation Activity in suburbs
Ford Foundation:
Metropolitan
Opportunity Program
• Program designed to take a metro‐regional approach to strengthening metropolitan areas; while
suburbs are intentionally in the scope of this work, suburban poverty is not the explicit focus
• Five year, $200 million effort to help transform the way cities, suburbs and surrounding
communities grow and plan for the future, promoting a new metropolitan approach that
interweaves housing, transportation and land‐use policy for economic growth
• Focuses on three initiatives: connecting people to opportunity, expanding access to quality
housing, and promoting metropolitan land‐use innovation
• ~$145 million has been invested since 2009
o Most work is metro‐regional; ~20‐25% focuses specifically on suburbs
The Chicago
Community Trust:
Regional Initiatives
• Trust’s geographic scope explicitly includes suburbs
• Supports affiliates that gain the benefit of the Trust’s expertise but with charters for regional
focus
o Affiliates include The Lake County Community Foundation and The Will County Community
Foundation
• In 2011, less than 13% of $31 million total giving (as reported in Foundation Center) went to
relevant suburban projects and organizations, primarily community development, human needs,
and education
Kresge Foundation • The Detroit metro region is one of seven major foundation priorities
o The strategy is called Re‐Imagining Detroit and includes nine components, including mass
transit development, land use, and complete neighborhoods
o In 2011, ~18% of total giving went to the Detroit priority area
• In 2011, only 4% of $26 million total giving to the Detroit MSA went to Detroit suburbs
Based on expert interviews, research, and Bridgespan analysis.. Chicago Community Trust numbers include only the 2011 giving reported in Foundation Center; 13% includes grantees with a mailing address in
suburbs, as well as Chicago‐based organizations with a listed grant use focus in suburbs, does not include grants to environmental, university or other unrelated organizations. Kresge numbers include the 2011
giving reported in Foundation Center; 4% includes grantees with a mailing address in Detroit suburbs.

23. Who is providing funding in this space?
Private and Government Overview
Private and Government Funding Landscape: Key Observations
Private funding is limited Government funds are hard to access and declining*
• Heavy reliance on limited funds: While suburban non‐profits rely most
heavily on the government as a funding source (>66% of their budgets),
this funding is increasingly insufficient to meet the growing needs of
the suburban poor
• Inability to capture funds: The available funding is channeled through
the existing non‐profit network, which is thin in suburbs. Interviewees
noted that even where funding is available, smaller non‐profits are
often not skilled at accessing it due to lack of awareness, size, or
capacity. Metro‐regional block grants tend to be allocated to cities over
suburbs.
23
• Shrinking funds: In addition, this limited funding is shrinking given
recent austerity measures as budget cuts tend to hit the suburbs before
they hit the cities (as seen, for example, in transportation cuts in Seattle
suburbs).
o In 2011, 47% of suburban providers in three major MSAs experienced
significant cuts in at least one key government funding stream
• Individual disconnect: Some individuals in suburbs do not know about
government benefits or choose not to access them due to social
stigmas.
o In 2010, while suburbs accounted for 54% of poor households, they
represented only 50% of poor households claiming SNAP
“Addressing suburban poverty is seen as a luxury by the Federal government” –
Academic
“All of the [suburban city’s] service budgets combined are something like 20x
smaller than [the one urban city’s] budget” – Suburban service provider
• Limited funds are available: Private funding to suburban non‐profits is
minimal
o For nearly 70% of suburban non‐profits, private funds account for less
than 25% of their total revenue
• Difficulty securing funds: Both funders and organizations identified
that nonprofits have limited organizational capacity to apply for private
funds, and face misperceptions about the need in the suburbs
• Lack of need perceived by individual donors:
o Local affluent populations often do not identify their suburbs as being
in need and continue to focus their charitable efforts on urban
poverty; the perception issues are similar outside of suburbs
o “Well‐off people in the suburbs continue to give the way they have
always given – to the cities.” – Suburban service provider
• Corporate funds are limited for several reasons:
o Corporations tend to fund based on promoting their brand rather than
where the greatest needs are. “Corporate funding dampens the ability
of a nonprofit to stand up for their clients when their interests are not
aligned with the corporation.” – Funder
o Suburban nonprofits do not have the access, skillset, relationships,
and capacity to access corporate funding. “Many nonprofits are
located in suburban communities with few potential corporate
partners and few networks through which to connect to private
philanthropy.” – Brookings article
o In addition to philanthropy, there are other roles that the private
sector could play in addressing suburban poverty, such as providing
workforce training, or making a commitment to local hiring
“There is a perpetuation of the old guard, but this old way… is no longer
working to meet the many and diverse needs of suburban poverty” – Suburban
umbrella organization
Based on expert interviews, research, and Bridgespan analysis. Data points from Brookings research.
*Unfortunately, researchers interviewed confirmed that data on quantities of federal
funding flows to suburbs is not available.

24. Coverage Drivers
Gap Analysis
• Coverage was fairly steady. It increased during the economic downturn and foreclosure crisis. Starting in 2010, the media’s use of the
term “suburban poverty” increased significantly over previous years, but the term’s use has diminished somewhat since then. There
has been limited social conversation using the term “suburban poverty” specifically.
• Coverage tended to appear in suburban and metropolitan areas where the problems seemed most acute; stories tended to concentrate
on areas with aging suburbs, especially in regions of the country where economic downtowns were evident and pervasive (e.g., the
Rust Belt in the Midwest or the Sunbelt in the southeastern U.S.).
• The tone of coverage is largely descriptive as the media focuses more on explaining the phenomenon, sharing anecdotes and
highlighting personal stories. There is little debate or commentary around the topic.
24
Communications Audit
• Coverage was heavily driven by the release of 2010 Census data showing the changing demographic of the urban core and its
surrounding suburbs. Minority groups and new immigrants are moving into the suburbs in larger numbers, while white young
professionals, young families and empty‐nesters are returning to cities.
• The Brookings Institution report drove some coverage focused on problems with aging suburban infrastructure, coupled with a dearth
of adequate social services for the poor in suburban areas.
• The foreclosure crisis and its impact on suburban homeowners was a coverage driver for suburban poverty.
• The issue of suburban poverty was seldom the primary focus of news coverage. Instead, many of the root problems that led to an
increase in suburban poverty were covered (e.g., the impact of the foreclosure crisis or the shift in the demographic composition of
American suburbs).
• The nomenclature used to describe the situation varied and while there has been a general increase in the media’s use of the term
“suburban poverty,” data indicates that the term has not yet become the default choice for all journalists reporting on the issue.
Volume, Geography & Tone

25. Communications Opportunity
• Typically, news coverage did not feature suburban poverty as a core topic. Suburban poverty was most featured in
articles about the changing demographics in American suburbs, the foreclosure crisis, and aging suburban
infrastructure and transportation.
• In the most recent 18 months of coverage, the phenomenon of suburban poverty had become better understood by
many media outlets, but continued to be part of larger stories on the topics mentioned above.
• For members of the middle class finding themselves in poverty for the first time, coverage focused on the lack of aid
or benefit awareness, and the perceived stigma of accepting charity. These issues have kept many of those in need
from accessing the services that are available to them.
• To date, there have been very few policy solutions put forward to specifically address suburban poverty – and those
that have been offered, are geared towards very different levels of government with no clear overarching
framework to knit these solutions together. Moreover, even basic research into the root causes and efficacy of
proposed solutions has been lacking, with much of the evidence being offered in anecdotal or episodic forms.
25
Highlights from Coverage
White Space Recommendation
• There is an opportunity to own white space on the topic of suburban poverty. There is coverage around related
issues like foreclosures and aging infrastructure, but there is an opportunity to focus attention more directly on
“suburban poverty” as a distinct issue area with specific policy recommendations and implications.

26. 26
4) Impact Assessment
Purpose
The Impact Assessment presents an early view of the impact potential in this space, outlining how we think change
could happen based on the dynamism assessment and using scenarios to illustrate different impact ranges.
Key Findings
• Existing areas of dynamism in this space include momentum around community revitalization, national interest in
revitalizing the housing market, increased attention in popular media with the release of the Brookings book, and
increased national and political attention to immigration reform and issues. Those dynamic areas could be
catalyzed towards potential high‐level outcomes that include (but are not limited to):
• Policymakers and funders acknowledge the problem of suburban poverty
• Equitable access to living wage jobs, career‐ready education, and quality healthcare services
• Equitable access to affordable housing
• Improved capacity of social service providers in the suburbs
• There are many choices around which a Development Strategy could be designed. Two potential dimensions that
could help to inform those choices are related to the concentration of poverty in a community and the size of a
community’s immigrant population. Choosing to focus on communities with high concentrations of poverty would
be informed by research demonstrating the community‐wide effects of high poverty rates, which exacerbate the
effects of poverty felt by individuals and households. The immigration dimension highlights a different type of
vulnerability and inequity related to cultural and political exclusion. These choices would have implications for the
set of interventions in the solution space, as well as the type of impact the Foundation could hope to achieve.

27. 27
How We Think Change Could Happen
Community revitalization
efforts gaining momentum
Increased national and
political commitment to
closing the achievement
gap
Decade long trend of job
sprawl, including increasing
share of jobs in outer ring
suburbs
Potential for emerging
funder interest e.g., Council
on Foundations’ annual
conference
Slow re‐emergence of
metro‐regional strategies
surrounding labor markets
and/or governance
National interest in
revitalizing the housing
market e.g., policy
initiatives, foundation
funders
Increased attention in
popular media and
potential for more with
release of Brookings book:
Confronting Suburban
Poverty in America
Increased national and
political attention to
immigration reform and
issues
Policymakers and funders acknowledge
the problem of suburban poverty
Equitable access to living wage jobs,
career‐ready education, and quality
healthcare services
Equitable access to affordable housing
Improved capacity of social service
providers in the suburbs
Improved
employment, health,
and education
outcomes for the
suburban poor and
reduced poverty
growth in the
suburbs.
Areas of Dynamism That Could be
Catalyzed Towards High‐level Outcomes
High‐level Outcomes That
Would be Required to
Achieve the Impact Goal
Potential
Impact Goal
An initiative could spur widespread recognition of the problem, improve the capacity of social
service providers in the suburbs, and increase access to opportunities for the poor in the suburbs.

28. 28
Illustrative Scenarios for Impact
These scenarios present selected choices around which a potential development strategy could be designed.
Concentrated poverty Immigrant poverty
People living in concentrated suburban poverty
• Characteristics of the dimension: Already vulnerable
groups are more likely to find themselves living in
concentrated pockets of suburban poverty (e.g., 76%
of the population residing in concentrated areas of
suburban poverty is non‐white) Concentrated
pockets of suburban poverty are growing rapidly and
are associated with a number of knock‐on effects
including higher rates of crime, unemployment,
teenage pregnancy, and high school drop‐outs.
• Potential Approach: Deep
— Build self‐sustaining networks of local non‐profits
to share best practices
— Support efforts to strengthen nonprofits through
institutions that provide consulting and finance
services
Low‐income immigrants living in suburban poverty
• Characteristics of the dimension: Poor immigrants
increasingly make the suburbs their first destination,
meaning there are now more poor immigrants living
in the suburbs than in urban areas. Poor immigrants
are particularly vulnerable as they often lack access
to voting rights and the social safety net and require
a unique set of supports (e.g., ESL courses, legal
representation, culturally competent healthcare)
• Potential Approach: Broad and Deep
— Raise awareness and build understanding of the
issue
— Advocate and convene to spur policies that
support poor suburban immigrants
— Build non‐profit capacity to address the needs of
local immigrants
— Support the civic infrastructure necessary for
communities to self‐organize

29. 29
Illustrative Scenarios for Impact
Vision of Scale
Affected Populations Possible Solution
Spaces Vision of Scale
• ~2.5 million immigrants live
in poverty the suburbs
• ~1 million immigrants live in
suburban poverty in the 3
MSAs with the most
immigrants living in suburban
poverty
Broad national awareness and
convening efforts
• Impact: National change in awareness ; Increase in funding flows
to key regions
• Assumes: $10 million allocated to raising awareness and
convening
Scale effective models within
and across suburbs
• Impact: Potential to serve 10,000‐ 650,000 individuals
• Assumes: $5 million total allocated to ramp‐up costs across 3
MSAs; $6.5 million/year allocated across 3 MSAs;
$100‐5,000/person total program costs**
National and regional advocacy
efforts
• Impact: National and regional changes in policy could provide a
broad impact to between .5 million and 1.5 million poor
immigrants living in the suburbs
• Assumes: $20 million allocated to advocacy efforts
• ~4 million individuals live in
concentrated poverty in the
suburbs
— This includes all low‐income
individuals living in areas
where over 20% of residents
fall below the federal
poverty line
• ~0.5 million individuals live
in suburban poverty in the 3
MSAs with the highest rate
of concentrated suburban
poverty
Build self‐sustaining networks
of local non‐profits to share
best practices
• Impact: Improve the local capacity of service providers in 3 MSAs
Assumes: $10 million allocated to local network building across 3
MSAs
Convening and national
awareness efforts
• Impact: National change in awareness; Increase in funding flows to
key regions
• Assumes: $10 million allocated to raising awareness and
convening
Create evidence for impact by
replicating effective urban
models in the suburban setting
• Impact: Potential to serve 10,000‐200,000 individuals
• Assumes: $5 million allocated to ramp‐up costs across 3 MSAs;
$7.5 million/year allocated across 3 MSAs; $450‐5,000/person
total program costs*

30. 30
Appendix

31. 31
Appendix Outline
Content in the
Appendix
Slide
Number Summary of Content
Examples of Goals
and Impacts for
Other Poverty
Initiatives
40 • Provides examples of the program/initiative goals, budget, and impact for three efforts
to address poverty: the Ford Foundation’s Metropolitan Opportunity Program, Promise
Neighborhoods’ Nurse‐Family Partnership, and the Harlem Children’s Zone.

32. Examples of Goals and Impacts
• Number Impacted not available.
32
• Annual served: Approximately
26,000 families enrolled/year
• Total served: Approximately
172,000 families (since
replication began in 1996)
• Annual served: Approximately
22,000 people reached at various
levels
• Five year, $200 million effort,
promoting a new metropolitan
approach that interweaves housing,
transportation and land‐use policy for
economic growth
• $145M has been given since 2009.
Most work is metro‐regional; 20‐25%
focuses specifically on suburbs
• NFP annual budget: $12M
• Cost incurred by affiliates to deliver
services: $117M
— Program cost: $4,950 per family
served (includes $450 NFP central
operations and $4,500 for affiliate
service delivery)
Note: Promise Neighborhoods’ “fully
loaded” annual budget is $130M
• Annual budget: $110M
• Program cost: $5,000 per person per
year
— This cost does not include public
funding of $12.5K/student received
for students at HCZ schools
for Other Initiatives
Initiative Budget Impact
Ford Foundation: Metropolitan
Opportunity Program
• Program designed to take a metro‐regional
approach to strengthening
metropolitan areas; while suburbs are
intentionally in the scope of this work,
suburban poverty is not the explicit
focus
Promise Neighborhoods: Nurse‐
Family Partnership (NFP)
• Community health program designed
specifically for low‐income, first‐time
mothers
• Enrolled mothers are paired with an
NFP‐trained registered nurse who
conducts regularly scheduled home
visits from pregnancy through age 2
Harlem Children’s Zone (HCZ)
• An interlocking network of programs
aimed at helping children break free of
the cycle of generational poverty
• HCZ’s “pipeline to success” targets a 97
block zone in Central Harlem with
education, social‐service, and
community building programs
*All funding and budget numbers are approximate.